Week Six: Oct 16, 2011

This week we finished the study in 3 John in an earlier post. Here we will start 2 John.

2 John

Outline

The structure of 2 John is very close to a typical 1^st century letter, and thus there is pretty broad agreement on the outline by scholars.

I.Opening

a. Address (1-2)
b. Greeting(3)

II.Body

a. Living In Truth and Love (4-6)
b. Reject False Teachers (7-11)

III. Conclusion

a. Final words (12)
b. Greeting (13)

Study

I. Opening

a. Address (1-2)

1* – From:¹ The Elder
To: The chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth², and not only I but also all who know the truth, 2* – because of the truth³ that is present in us and will be with us forever.

A standard opening of a 1^st Century letter. A writing to B, greetings and prayer

The Elder

This is same opening as 3 John. For further details, see comments here.

To: The chosen lady and her children

– There are three options on who this letter is written to.

1) This could refer to a particular noble woman and her children. The word for Lady (κυρίᾳ / kuria) is a the female version of Lord. It is possible that this woman was well known to John. Her name would have been on the outside and so here he only needed to refer to her as the chosen lady. It is also possible that her name was Eclecta as in as in “The Lady Eclectra” or possibly Kyria as in “The chosen Kyria.”

This understanding is supported by a strict reading of this passage as well as others such as v13 The children of your(singular) chosen sister greet you (singular).

2) This is could be a metaphor for a particular local church and its members. With this understanding, the Lady = the church and could be a reference to the Bride of our Lord. Then the children would be its members.

This is supported by other passages such as the later part of v1 whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth. This would be a very unusual way for a man to address a woman during the first century. Then there are passages such as v6 Just as you (plural) have heard from the beginning what he commanded, you (plural) must live by it.

C. H. Dodd suggests that the reason for the metaphor could have been to protect the church from persecution should the letter fall into the wrong hands.

3) The third option is that this is a general letter intended for many local churches. While this would explain the lack of mention of a particular church, such as the church at ______, it is difficult to account for the specific details within the letter. It is notable that one of the leading proponents of this view, Bultmann, argues that these details are fictitious.

My view is the second one, that this refers to a particular local church as this seems to be most natural way to understand over all letter.

whom I love in the truth

– This could simply mean whom I genuinely love, as in the ISV, but given importance of truth in John’s writings, and in this sentence I prefer the translation of in the truth

and not only I but also all who know the truth,

– i.e., the rest of the church. Evidently this church (or woman) was well known and had a good reputation.

because of the truth that is present in us

– The truth is not just academic knowledge that we have. It is because of the truth that we love, and love is grounded in truth, which gives it life. Truth is not just something we know it indwells us. See John 14:15-17a: “If you love me, keep my commandments. ¹⁶I will ask the Father to give you another Helper, to be with you always. ¹⁷He is the Spirit of truth,”

and will be with us forever.

– Real truth is not temporal. This may also be a reference back to the phase, be with you always found in John 14:16.

For the questions this week, see the first part of this week’s post.

Next week we will start in 2 John 3

If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
1 The Gk. lacks From
2ISV whom I genuinely love
3 ISV omits because of the truth

With Romney as the front-runner, the question of his Mormon religion continues to be an issue and came to the forefront recently when a Perry supporter labeled Mormons a cult, which was then followed by calls for Perry to repudiate these comments.

This is an issue, which if not handled correctly, could blow up in a number of directions. Romney supporters are understandably nervous that if Romney’s Mormon beliefs become an issue, it could cost him the nomination or the election. However, if the defense of Romney is to label any criticism of Mormonism bigoted that could also easily backfire and alienate many Christians who make up a large portion of the conservative base that Romney will need to win.

One factor that makes this a huge minefield is the general ignorance of the mainstream media when it comes to religion. But the biggest problem in this whole debate concerns the word “cult.” “Cult” is one of those words that has a very large lexical domain (range of meaning) from academic/technical at one end of the spectrum to a derogatory label on the other. Those calling for Perry to repudiate the term clearly see the term in the latter sense. Because of this ambiguity in meaning I do not use the word, and have encouraged others to avoid it.

While there certainly are some Christians who use the term in a derogatory sense, for many Christians the term cult simply refers to groups who in some fashion claim to be Christian, but who reject one or more of the key doctrines that have defined Christianity. But this gets into a discussion of just what is Christianity. I discussed this issue in my book, Christianity and Secularism.

On these central beliefs there is very little dispute. In fact, it has been these doctrines that have defined Christianity as a religion. Groups that accept these doctrines are considered to be Christian groups. Those who do not accept these doctrines cannot be considered Christians, at least not in any historical sense.

Some may consider it to be judgmental and arrogant to say who is or is not a Christian simply because they do or do not accept a particular doctrine or belief. First, let it be clear that we are talking about classifying groups based on beliefs. After all, if there is a difference between being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, does it not mean that Christians must have some distinct beliefs that can be contrasted with these other religions? Second we are not talking about an individual’s relationship with God. This is a spiritual matter that only God can judge, for only He knows what is truly in a person’s heart. We may be able to get a good indication by the person’s actions or beliefs but we cannot judge the heart.

Groups do not have personal relationships with God. What defines a religious group is the beliefs of the group. If we were to be completely non-judgmental, then we would have to conclude that any group that claimed to be Christian was, regardless of what they believed. This would render the term “Christian” completely meaningless. Should we consider a group that believed in child sacrifice to be a Christian group? Would this make child sacrifice a legitimate expression of the teachings of Christ? Clearly not. So the question is not should a line be drawn that defines Christianity, but where do we draw that line.

If no line is drawn, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless term that could be applied to any group or any action from the most divine to the most depraved. If, on the other hand, we compose a long and extensive list of doctrines that must be accepted in order for a group to be considered Christian, then we would indeed be arrogant and judgmental, restricting Christianity only to those groups that agreed with us in every little detail. The doctrines that define Christianity should be limited to those expressly taught in the Bible as essential….

Philip Schaff, in his three volume work, Creeds of Christendom, surveyed the doctrinal statements and creeds of the various Christian churches down through the ages. He refers to their ecumenical creeds as those creeds which contain “the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation.” As to the acceptance of these creeds, Schaff points out that they:

… are to this day either formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek, the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond of union between them.

The differences that divide denominations are mostly peripheral issues, such as whether or not some spiritual gifts are available to be used today. (pg 76-7;90-1)

How this applies to the current debate is that Mormons reject some of these key doctrines. For example, while both Christianity and Judaism believe that there is only one God, Mormons believe that that many gods exist. This does not make Mormons bad people, but it does mean that Mormons beliefs are different from those that have historically defined Christianity.

It is true that Mormons use a lot of the same terminology as Christians, such as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but what they mean by this is often vastly different than what Christians have historically meant. Thus when a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, to name just a few, talk about the nature of God, or say that Jesus is the Son of God, and they all mean the same thing. Mormons talking about these topics may sound similar, but they mean something significantly different.

This is not an unusual circumstance. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a lot of beliefs. In fact they all believe that there is only one God. But they also have key differences. Thus we refer to them as different religious movements. While there are a large number of Christian groups with differing beliefs, they have historically shared a core of beliefs that has defined them as Christian. Mormons reject this core of beliefs, so the easiest thing to do is to likewise consider Mormons a different religious groups. This is not said in a derogatory sense, but merely an attempt to be accurate and precise.

So how does this apply to the election? The simple answer is that it doesn’t. The constitution is pretty clear that there should be no religious test for office. The office of the president has no religious function, and therefore the religion of the candidate should be largely irrelevant. It would only become relevant if the candidate chose to make it an important part of their campaign, but this would in and of itself raise red flags. But Romney has not done this, and nothing in his career would indicate that he would. So as a bottom line, when it comes to Romney, while I do not believe he is a Christian, I am looking for a President, not a pastor. Thus I will be much more interested in his polices than his religion.

Week Five:  Oct 9, 2011

This week we finished the study in 3 John picking up in verse 11b.   We also started 2 John, but I will start that in another post.

II.  Body

b.      Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

11b – The person who does what is good is from God. The person who does what is evil has never seen God.

–          Some see this as a tough verse.   While this sounds good at first, as Paul writes in Romans 3:23 “…all have sinned and continue to fall short of God’s glory” and so no one would be from God and everyone would be the category of those who have never seen God.     Just how do we understand an atheist who helps the poor?  What about Christians who do evil?  Just what is this verse saying? As in all issues of interpretation the context is key. John has just encouraged Gaius to imitate the good, and so this is part of the exhortation to do good and not evil.

It is also important to keep in mind that there was tendency in  first century Jewish culture to put things in stark black and white terms.   For example, in John 15:23 Jesus does not talk about belief and disbelief, but says that, “The person who hates me hates the father.” Luke 14:26 is probably the best example of this when Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother… he can’t be my disciple.”  Few would take this literally, and most see this as emphasizing that we must put Jesus first to be a disciple.

–          So when we come to this passage, we must understand that it is in the context of encouraging Gaius to imitate the good and is presented in black and white terms.   John cannot be saying that Christians never do evil.  For he say in 1 John 1:8 “If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves.” So what he is saying is that when looking for examples to imitate, we should look to those Christians (the context here is within the Church) whose lives are marked by doing good, and avoid those who are doing evil.

–          So then what does this say about Diotrephes?  One option is that this is a general statement and should be seen as an exhortation to Gaius.  The other option is that this has a broader context and directly contrasts Diotrephes with Demetrius in the next verse. In short that Diotrephes has never seen God.    I believe this should be understood in terms of the former.  The discussion has moved away from Diotrephes and onto Gaius. If this were a judgment of Diotrephes, it would be a severe one.  We will see in 1 and 2 John that John is not reluctant pass judgment when needed.  Thus if he was going to make such a judgment about Diotrephes it is more likely he would do so in a  statement directly about Diotrephes, rather than in one where the connection to Diotrephes must be inferred from a statement about how Gaius should act.

12 – Demetrius has received a good report from everyone, including the truth itself. We, too, can testify to this report, and you know that our testimony is true.

–          Demetrius means belonging to Demeter, the Greek Goddess of fruits and crops.  This would indicate that he was of pagan origin. If his parents were Christian, they most likely converted after he was named. He apparently was unknown to Gaius, and thus the introduction included here.
He is almost certainly the one who delivered the letter. If Demetrius lived near Gaius, he would have been known and no introduction would have been needed. If he was traveling and not yet there, the letter would have mentioned his coming.  Some suggest that he may have been one of those rejected by Diotrephes. I see this as possible but beyond what the evidence supports. This could conflict with his being unknown to Gaius depending on the assumptions about Gaius in verse 9.  He was probably there for more than just the delivery of the letter and had been sent to help Gaius with the problem of Diotrephes until John could arrive.

received a good report from everyone

–          In context, this is all Christians.   That this is mention abruptly following the exhortation to not imitate evil but good indicates that Demetrius is being held up as an example of the good that Gaius is to follow.

including the truth itself

–          Exactly what John is revering to here is unclear.   It could refer to Truth personified, i.e., that if truth could speak, it would give a good report for Demetrius.   Another option is that this is a reference to God as in John 14:7 I am the Way the Truth and the Life.   Finally it could be truth as the reality of his walk with the Lord.  In other words, that the way Gaius lives in the truth,  as John says about Gaius, (v3) testifies about him.    It is hard to say which of these John intends.

We, too, can testify to this report

–          Demetrius is personally known by John and he adds his testimony to the rest.   This three fold testimony is an indication of the trust that could be placed in him and the importance of his mission.

and you know that our testimony is true

–          Finally this is a subtle indication of authorship  – see John 21:14  “We know his testimony is true.”  This seems to be phase that John would use.

III. Conclusion

a.      Final words (13-14)

13 – Although I have a great deal to write to you,¹ I would rather not write with pen and ink.

–          This is a serious matter and there is a lot to do, but John does not want to write. He has already mentioned that he will be visiting soon (v10) and has probably given more detailed instructions to Demetrius.

14 – Instead, I hope to see you² soon and speak face to face.

–          Again John mentions that he is coming soon.  I always find it interesting the way idioms change from language to language.  This is literally: Mouth to mouth

b.      Greetings (15)

15 May peace be with you!³ Your friends greet you.⁴ Greet⁵ each of our friends by name.

–          John closes with a standard greeting.

May peace be with you

–          Traditional Jewish greeting, which was frequently used by Christians.   This is the greeting used by Jesus in locked room following Resurrection  (John 20:19)

Your friends greet you.

–          Gaius evidently had friends who were with John and they send their greetings

Greet each of our friends by name

–          John sends a personal greeting to his friends who are with Gaius.  John want each specifically greeted, as opposed to a general greeting to all. These friends could be in Gaius’ household or in his church.

Questions:  The questions this week centered on the intersection of Love and Truth.  Love asks us to be accepting.  Truth demands that we maintain standards.  How does one do both?  One question concerned how this applied to the Presbyterian Church-USA ordination of a homosexual minister in Madison, Wi?   Clearly that church was focusing on the acceptance that stems from love.  But what about truth?  The Bible’s position on homosexuality may not be politically correct, but it is clear.   But this goes to a deeper problem concerning the authority of God’s word.  Will we follow what the Bible says, or will we follow the current trends of political correctness?

Those opposed to the message of the word of God, frequently present such issues as conflict between reason and/or science and faith, where faith seems to be defined as that which is false.  But this is far from the case.  In fact the evidence, while frequently ignored, is pretty clear.  The closer that one follows the teaching of the Bible the happier and more fulfilled will be their lives and longer they tend to live.  For the Christian, this is not too surprising.  The Bible is not an arbitrary document.  It rules were not given so that we could be punished.   Like the Sabbath, the Bible was given for help us.  The primary message concerns the reconciliation with God and our eternal life, but much of the Bible also deals with how we can life better lives here and now.

Some of the Bible consists of thou shall, and thou shall not.  But not all the instructions of the Bible are as clear cut as you should not murder or you should not steal.  Much of the teachings of the Bible consist of balancing competing interests.  That is the one of the focuses of John’s letters, just how do we balance competing interests of Truth and Love.

Again I will have a follow up Post to start 2 John.

Next week we will start in 2 John 3

If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
1) Lit. you (singular)
2) Lit. you (singular)
3) Lit. you (singular)
4) Lit. you (singular)
5) The Gk. verb is singular

Week Four: Oct 2, 2011

This week we continue the study in 3 John picking up in verse 10.

I. Body

a. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)

10* – For this reason, when I come I will remind him of what he is doing¹ in spreading false charges against us. And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers. He even tries to stop those who want to accept them and throws them out of the church.

– Most translation have, “if I come” but the Greek grammar here assumes a probably future. So John is planning to come and deal with this issue. In modern parlance, this would be the equivalent to saying “Lord willing…”

– John plans to come and to deal with this.

I will remind him of what he is doing

– The ISV and many translations have “call attention to.” The Greek word here (ὑπομνήσω / upomnēsō) mean to remember. The translation of “Call attention to” seems strikes me as implying a more public venue, whereas to remind could be private or public. I have no doubt that John planned to follow the biblical model of first confronting Diotrephes privately.

– John’s determination to come and deal with Diotrephes is not only proper it is good. There is no question that the improper exercise or rejection of authority is wrong and this would sum up Diotrephes. But a failure to exercise of proper authority is also wrong.

in spreading false charges against us.

– The Greek word here (φλυαρῶν/phluarōn) means “to speak in such a way as to make no sense, presumably because of ignorance of what is involved.” (Louw-Nida) This is in the present tense, as with the rest of the verse, indicating that this was an ongoing problem, not just something that had happened.

– It would seem that to justify his rejection of John’s authority, Diotrephes was making statements that were untrue. It is not clear if he was lying, but he certainly was not telling the truth. Some may be confused by this distinction, stemming from a general confusion about the meaning of lie. Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily a lie, as it could just be an honest mistake. On the other hand a carefully phrased statement may be technically true, but it can still be used to deceive, and it is that deception that is at the core of a lie. In short, a lie is anything said with the intent to deceive.

Thus it is possible that Diotrephes was not attempting to deceive, but rather in his attempt to justify himself, he was not as careful as he should have been. This is something that we should all be wary of. In fact he was so uncritical in his charges against John that he drifted into claims that were evidently internally inconsistent to the point of nonsense. So whether he was actively lying, or just spreading untrue statements, it is clear that Diotrephes did not love the truth.

– This is the question that we should ask ourselves: Do we love the truth? When we speak, particularly when we speak about others, are we sure about everything we say? This really becomes important when we are in a dispute. When we are in a dispute which is more important to us? Being completely truthful, even when it does not help us? Or is it winning? Probably most would say being truthful. But what if we rephrase that slightly? Unless one is a lawyer, winning is normally not the main concern, but rather winning for a reason. What if we, for the sake of argument, assume that we are completely correct, and in fact have been wronged, such that our side is the side of justice? Now which is more important, truthfulness or justice?

Here I think the Gospel of John and the Epistles give a pretty clear answer: truth is a more important value than justice. Jesus did not say in that he was “the way, the justice and the life.” Consider this, as sinners, do we really want to demand complete justice?

This really comes home when we consider how often we tend to cast things in terms of motives and compared with how well can we know motives? We can speak about motives, after all John said that Diotrephes wanted to be first, but we had better be very sure about what we said.

And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers

– Not content with saying things, Diotrephes moves on to actions as well. What we say can be bad, what we do is worse. While Gaius was praised for receiving the brothers, Diotrephes refused. Again there is no indication that the problem with Diotrephes was doctrinal. Perhaps he was them as a challenge to his authority? Or perhaps it was because they were associated with John and to accept them would be to accept John’s authority, but either way he did not receive them.

tries to stop those who want to accept them throws them out of the church

– Not only did he not receive them, he tried to stop others from receiving them as well. Throwing them out of the church should not be thought of in terms of formal excommunication. That would imply a more formal church structure than probably existed at the time. Rather this would be a breaking of fellowship. This indicates that the break with John was to some extent public and that Diotrephes had supporters within the church. These members may not have had the full story, as we have seen false statements about John played a role in all this. But Diotrephes did have supporters, and so John was coming to set the records straight.

b. Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

11a – Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.

do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

– With another a personal appeal, John marks a change in subject

– The commentators I read saw this as John telling Gaius to resist any pressure put on him to follow after Diotrephes. But, with all the praise of Gaius to this point, this simply does not strike me as correct, and it was not how I read this. Instead I saw this as John telling Gaius not to respond in like fashion. As we saw in the previous verse, Diotrephes was speaking ill of John, and putting pressure on member to follow him. Gaius should not respond in like fashion. He should not speak ill of Diotrephes, and put pressure on member to support John.

So how should Gaius (or we) respond? The two hallmarks of John’s teaching here have been truth and love. Modern culture responses to the love part of this pair easily. But truth, does not fare as well. Yet for John, truth, which is mentioned 6 times in letter, is very important. Love is mentioned once, beloved four times.

One other question is why does John say imitate (μιμοῦ / mimou)? For many, it is the heart that matters, and if your heart is not in what you do, it is meaningless. Yet the concept of imitating implies actions based, not on our heart, but on something outside of us. It is doing things even when our heart is not in it, or even against it. Yet, we learn and become better at what we do by imitation. If you want to learn a musical instrument or a language you must practice, and the practice is more important than where their heart is. Likewise, if we want to be a better Christians we must practice. This also touches on the modern distrust of ritual, as stale and dead. Yet many Christians have found that ritual can get them through periods where they “don’t feel it” and help rekindle faith. Now with a musical instrument it is easier if you have a teacher to imitate. Again the same is truth for Christians, and our teacher is Jesus.

Next week we will start in 3 John 11b

If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes

1) ISV: I will call attention to what he is doing

I. Body

a. Commendation of Gaius (5-8)

b. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)

Questions:

Week Two: Sept 18, 2011

3 John

Outline

The structure of 3 John is very close to a typical 1^st century letter, and thus there is pretty broad agreement on the outline by scholars.

I.Opening

a.      Address (1)
b.      Prayer (2)
c.       Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)

II.Body

a.      Commendation of Gaius (5-8)
b.      Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)
c.       Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

III. Conclusion

a.      Final words (13-14)
b.      Greetings (15)

Study

I. Opening

a.      Address (1)

1 – From:[1] The Elder
To: My dear friend Gaius, whom I genuinely love.

The Elder

The typical opening of a 1^st Century letter contains 4 components: From, To, Greetings, and Prayer.  John opens with the first two of these components.

John does not use his Name but rather his title.  This would indicate that he had a position of great respect.  Elsewhere the plural (elders) is used to refer to the leaders in a local church, (Acts 11:30, 1 Tim 5:17).  It does not have quite the same meaning here as The Elder is apparently writing to a church other than his home church.  Thus it would appear that The Elder is someone who had authority over many churches

The fact that John refers to himself as “THE” elder could indicate that John was the last of the twelve.  The term elders would also indicate that John was elderly, though for the 1^st century that is not saying much.

To: My dear friend Gaius

Gaius was a very common name in the first century, and so we really do not know who this is.  Detailed address information would have been given to the carrier of the letter, which was probably Demetrius (v11-2).  From the rest of the letter we know that Gaius was a Christian, was probably a prominent member of his church and that this church was most likely one of those under the care of John.

whom I genuinely love.

A genuine statement of affection.

For some reason John breaks with custom and does not include the formal greeting that would normally appear at this point.  This also could be a sign of familiarity, i.e., to dispense with custom,  or it could just be that John cared little for custom.  He somewhat breaks with custom in 2 John and 1 John does not follow the format of a letter at all, though it is likely that 1 John is not actually a letter.

b.      Prayer (2)

2* – Dear friend, I pray that you are doing well in every way and that you are healthy, just as your soul is doing well.[2]

Dear friend,

Another statement of affection.  As we will see, John seems to use this and similar statements as a means of dividing up his letters.  Here he does this just before starting his prayer.

I pray that you are doing well in every way

While skipping the traditional greeting, He does include the customary prayer.

The Greek word here (euodousthai) literally means “to lead along a good path” (Friberg) .  In Romans 1:10 it is used literally … by God’s will I may at last succeed in coming to you. Here it is being used metaphorically, with the meaning “that your journey through life is a good one.” Outside of the NT it was also used to refer to gain or profit in business (Louw).

While spiritual welfare is important John does not limit his prayer just to that.  He also prays that Gaius prosper and succeed.

and that you are healthy

Literally: To have well, an idiom for good health

While this does not indicate that Gaius had health problems, it does not rule them out.  When we get to verse v9 we will see that health problems might explain some difficulties there.

just as your soul is doing well.

The Greek word for doing well here is the same as earlier in the verse.  Here it indicates that Gaius’ soul is progressing well, so well that John prays that the rest of Gaius life is doing as well as his soul is doing.

Note: John is praying that Gaius do well both physically as well as spiritually, both are important to John.  Getting the right balance between the physical and spiritual is tough.

c.       Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)

3* – I have greatly rejoiced with every arrival of brothers that testified about your truthfulness [3]and how you live according to the truth.

I was overjoyed with every arrival of brothers that testified

John was not just happy but very happy.  The Greek work for erchomenow is a present middle participle, and indicates repetition either by the same brothers many times, or by different groups of brothers.  Either way, it is clear that John knew of Gaius, which is another indication that Gaius held a prominent position.

about your truthfulness

Literally “your truth.” This is more than just honesty, but also includes an adherence to the true.  A key feature of Gaius’ faith was his adherence to the truth, i.e., to sound doctrine.  This was so key that others would report on it.

and how you live according to the truth.

Gaius faith was more than just belief, he lived it as well.  He put his beliefs into practice.

What would other say about us?  What would their report be?

4 – Ihave no greater joy than to hear that my children are living according to the truth.

John stresses how much this pleased him.  The word John uses for “greater” is an interesting one.  The Greek word is meizoteran.  In Greek the word for great is megas, which is where we get the English prefix mega-.  Greek normally uses an ending (- teran ) to make a comparative, similar to the way English use the ending –er as in great + er is greater.  But instead of using the normal ending Greek as a special word for greater : meizon.  John, however really wants to make sure his readers understand just how great his joy really is, so he takes the Greek word for greater, and then for emphasis adds the –teran ending.  In literal English, for him there is no “greaterer” joy.

my children

This could mean John led Gaius to Christ, or it could just be that he had spiritual authority over him.

What is our greatest joy?  What is the greatest demand we put on our children?  Is it School?  Grades?  Success?  A particular career?  If you were to ask parents today which was most important would it be that their children “live according to the truth” (or in secular terms that their children be good) ?  Or would it be that their children get a good education and a career?  More importantly, what would your children say was your greatest desire for them?

Questions:

One question that came up in class concerned the relationship of truth and love.  A key problem is that living truth and living in love are sometimes in conflict.  Living in truth requires a strict adherence to the truth.  If we are not careful, this can lead to division and we find ourselves splitting over even minor disagreements about what the Bible teaches.  On the other hand, living in love leads us to overlook differences in favor of just loving one another.

As with so many things this is a balancing act one of standing for the truth, but not in a cold doctrinal way, but one that stress Love, one where the focus is on reconciliation, not division.  At the extremes it is pretty easy.  We do not want to divide on minor issues such as whether the pre-mid-post tribulation rapture.  On the other hand we do need stand firm on the deity of Christ.  But as we get closer to the middle it gets harder to know exactly where the line is or just how we should respond.  This is one of the main themes we will be looking at in this class.

Next week we will start in 3 John 5

If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for background

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

[1] 1 The Gk.  lacks From

[2] ISV your soul is healthy

[3] ISV: I was overjoyed when some brothers arrived and testified about your truthfulness

This year I am beginning a study into the letters of John. I will be posting the study here online as well as teaching it at the church I attend.   If you are in the area of Wausau Wisconsin and want to attend the class live, it is at Wausau campus of Highland Community Church and starts about 9:20 AM every Sunday from Labor Day through Memorial Day.  In my classes, I encourage questions and discussions, so if you have questions about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

Week One:  Sept 11, 2011

Background

This week we will deal with a lot of the background information.  Some consider this unimportant and boring, but it can be important to understanding the context of the letters, and thus to understanding the letters themselves.  As you will see as we go, I am a very big believer in the importance of context. So we will be spending some time, not only on the background information, but also the structure of the letters particularly 1 John.

One advantage of the online version will be that you can skim this background information for the moment, and just focus on the conclusions.  Later as issues arise in the letters, you can refer back here as needed.

Finally, this is a class, not a full commentary.  Thus, what I am presenting here, particularly in this first week, is the summary of my studies.  While many may conclude I am going into too much detail, a few will notice the large amount of information I am skipping over.  I can only say that this is a balancing act. If you think I am out of balance, feel free to ask a question.   With that said, let’s get started.

Author

As one begins to look at the authorship of these three letters one thing that quickly becomes clear is that they are very closely linked to the Gospel of John.  Even a causal reading reveals a marked similarity between all four documents (Gospel + 3 letters) and that they are somewhat different from other books in the New Testament.  (Note: The similarity or difference with the book of Revelations  raise some other issues which will not be addressed here.)

While some scholars claim that the internal evidence point to different authorship, these are arguments are very weak for the following reasons.

1)       2 and 3 John are too short for conclusions.  They seem to have the same author but there are not long enough to reach a firm conclusion either way.

2)      The Gospel and all three epistles do show a strong relationship in language.  For example, they all present similar themes in terms of opposites with no middle ground such as Light/Dark, Life/Death, Truth/Lie, Love/hate.

3)      As for the supposed difference between them, they are easily accounted for by context.

Thus in Gospel, the Holy Spirit is our paraclete (counselor) while in 1^st John it is Jesus. But this is not a conflict because John 14:16 make it clear that the Holy Spirit is “another counselor” and that the Spirit is coming because Jesus is leaving.

2 and 3 John were letters sent by “the elder.”   1 John does not identify the author, though it is clear he was known to those to whom he wrote.  The Gospel, likewise, does not identify the author by name, but there are enough details in the account to see that the author was the Apostle John.

Bottom line: The internal evidence is for a common authorship of the Apostle John.

When we come to the external evidence it is both early and clear.  In particular, are Papias, who knew and studied under John, and Iraenaeus who studied under Polycarp, who like Papias knew and studied under John. Both were in a position to know, and both identified John as the author.

Often these early sources simply appear as references, but I thought it might be nice to actually quote them.  First are a number of allusions to the letters of John, i.e., that is the message and words seem to be strongly influenced by these letters, but without a direct citation.  These will be followed by the passages in John’s letters that appear to be the source.   Finally I will cite some passages where the source is identified as John.   Note that the parts in bold are the parts that are influence by John’s letters.

Allusions:

Clement of Rome  – AD 96

1 Clement 49:5 Love joineth us unto God; love hideth a multitude of sins; love beareth all things; is long suffering in all things. In love there is nothing illiberal, nothing haughty. Love hath no schism; love maketh not sedition; love doth all things in harmony; in love all the elect of God have been made perfect. Without love nothing is acceptable unto God.

1 Clement 50:3 All the generations, from Adam even unto this day, are gone by; but they who have been made perfect in love according to the grace of God inhabit the abode of the pious, and shall be made manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of Christ.

Didache AD 90-120

Didache 10:5 Remember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Thy love;

and gather it together from the four winds- even the Church which has been sanctified-into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

1 John – Perfected in Love

1 John 2: 5 But whoever continually keeps his commandments is the kind of person in whom God’s love has truly been perfected. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God.

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 John 17-18 There is no fear where love exists.  Rather, perfect love banishes fear, for fear involves punishment, and the person who lives in fear has not been perfected in love.

The Epistle of Barnabas  – c130

Barnabas 5:9 – 11 And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.  10 For if He had not come in the flesh neither would men have looked upon Him and been saved, forasmuch as when they look upon the sun that shall cease to be, which is the work of His own hands, they cannot face its rays. 11 Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets.

Barnabas 12:10 Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.

Polycarp Epistle to the  Philippians  c135

Polycarp 7:1 For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.

1 John – Come in the Flesh

1 John 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.

2 John – Come in the Flesh

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Direct Mentions:

Papias  110-140

Eusebius Church History Book 3 39:16 16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer[Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.  (Note: First Epistle is Eusebius’ term not Papias’)

Irenaeus c 180

Against Heresies Book 3 16   2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself… he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as you have heard that Antichrist does come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.”  Loosely quoted from 1 John 2:18

Against Heresies Book 3 16 8 And again does he [John] say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” 2 John 7-8

Bottom line: Taken as a whole, the external and internal evidence is strong that all 4 documents (Gospel & Epistles) were written by the same person, and that this person was the Apostle John.

While this conclusion is question by more liberal scholars, I believe it to be solid. In fact, it is so solid that it raises question as to why these scholars continue to question the authorship of John.  For those interested, I wrote a post on this when I was doing this part of the research, and I refer those interested to that post.

Recipients

With the authorship established the next question is to whom did John write?  This will of course depend on the letter.

1 John has no address or greeting that was the normal custom of the time.  Its only parallel among the “letters” would be the book of Hebrews.   Based on evidence from the letter itself, it would seem that 1 John was sent to a church.

2 John is a more conventional letter and was written to,  “the chosen lady and her children.”  For reasons we will go into when we get there, I believe that this refers to a particular church and its members.

3 John was written to a person named Gaius. Unfortunately this was a very common name in the 1^st century and so does not help us much with identifying the particular person.  It would somewhat be like finding a letter in Mexico addressed simply to “Jesus” or in Saudi Arabia addressed to “Mohammed.”  The Gaius mentioned in 3 John, was probably not one of the other Gaius’ mentioned in the Bible, although there is a 4th century document that says it was sent to Gaius of Derbe in Acts 20:4.

Reasons for the letters

While we will go into the details for this as we work our way through each letter, here is a summary as to why the letters were written.

1^st John

It seem that a splinter group had begun to question key teachings the faith and as a result had broken away from the church to whom the letter was written.

2^nd John

Unnamed traveling preachers were spreading false doctrines.

3^rd John

Diotrephes, a leader in the local church, was resisting John’s oversight and causing problems.

Date

Since John died around AD 98, that would put an upper limit on the date.  As we saw above Clement appeared to use 1 John in his letter written  in 96, which would move the upper limit for 1 John a few years earlier.

The date of 1 John is linked to the date of the Gospel.  This is because, as we will see later, it would appear that the splinter group talked about in the letter, was an early version of Gnosticism, a religious movement that would really take shape in the 2^nd century.  Gnostics liked large parts the Gospel of John with it imagery of, for example, light and darkness.  Of course they ignored those parts that directly conflicted with their views, but overall they like the Gospel of John.  Many scholars have pointed out that 1 John can be seen as a corrective, not so much to the Gospel, but to the distortion of the Gospel by these early Gnostics.

From this we can draw two conclusions:  Firstly, the Gospel was written before Gnosticism became an issue otherwise John would probably have been a little clearer so as not to leave room for Gnostic distortions.   Secondly, 1 John was written long enough after the Gospel, such that this early form of Gnosticism could begin to grow, and to begin to distort the Gospel.

Some other factors are that in the Gospel there is no indication of the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.), which would indicate that it was either written before the temple was destroyed, or long enough after that it was no longer an issue.   Finally, it would appear likely based on John 21:19 that Peter was already dead when the Gospel was written which would place it after 65 AD.  This also makes it more likely that the Gospel was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD than before.

All of this taken together would tentatively point to a date in the early 80s for the Gospel, which would then put 1 John somewhere in the early 90s.  Since the traveling preachers in 2 John have similar teaching to the group in 1 John it was probably written about the same time.   3 John on the other hand could have been written at almost any time during the latter part of John’s life.

Order of Writing

The order found in the NT does not necessarily reflect the order in which they were written.  In fact, 1 John was probably put first because it was the largest.   So we do not really know what order in which they were written.

There does seem to be an progression in the nature of the problems,  with 3 John addressing a church leader who was rejecting John’s authority,  2 John addressing the arrival of traveling teachers spreading false teachings,  and 1 John dealing with a split in a church over false teaching similar to those of the traveling teachers in 2 John. Yet we do not even know if the letters were all sent to the same church, much less addressed common problems.

Still this progression of problems is a useful way to approach these letters.  Even if it is not a chronological order, it is still a useful order.

So we will start our study beginning with 3 John and then working our way back to 1 John.   This will have the added advantage of giving more emphasis to 2 and 3 John, rather than treating them as after thoughts.

So Next week will pick up with 3 John 1:1.  Again if you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

References

Some have asked me about the source material I use for in my research.   So for those who are interested, here are the major sources I am using in this study.

English Translation

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note:  Some places I have modify  the text from the version ISV.  Passages that I have modified have been noted and the ISV text included in a footnote.

Main Commentaries

I Howard Marshall; The Epistles of John.  The New International Commentary on the New Testament.

Glen W. Barker; 1,2 & 3 John, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 12

Other References

Friberg Greek Lexicon

Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon

Cleon L. Rogers Jr, Cleon L. Rogers III; The New Linguistic and Exegetical key to the Greek New Testament

D. A. Carson; The Gospel According to John.

Donald Guthrie,  New Testament Introduction.

D.A. Carson,  Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris; An Introduction To the New Testament.

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

W. Hall Harris II, The Prologue of 1 John (1:1-4)    http://bible.org/seriespage/prologue-1-john-11-4

I have been reading a new book that I find both challenging and exciting. No, it is not the latest spy thriller, and in fact is not even a novel. It is non-fiction and on a subject matter that has been dealt with many times in the past. Yet it does so by challenging cultural norms that most have simply taken for granted, and probably have not even thought much about. What is exciting is the potential it has to impact the church and thereby the world at large, which is huge.

The book is Rite of Passage for the Home and Church: Raising Christ-Centered Young Adults, by D. Kevin Brown (Energion Publications, 2011), and from its title one might question my claims of a huge impact. A huge impact can only come in the face of a huge problem. A book on study habits for those who are B+ or A- students only has a limited room for improvement. A book aimed at failing students that can transform them into A students would be huge, not only for their grades, but on what that would mean for their lives as well.

The problem addressed in Rite of Passage is larger than just grades. To put it bluntly, the church in America, as a whole, is failing its young people. This is a tough message and one that meets with tremendous resistance. I know because I have been talking in my speaking and teaching for nearly twenty years and have met with everything from skepticism and denial to, in few cases, hostility. People point to their youth programs and how many children are being reached, and how many accepted the Lord at their last vacation Bible school as evidence that I am wrong.

Yet the statistics I have been following for quite some time, and which Brown points to in his book tell a different story. As Brown points out, while attendance at youth programs may be strong, numerous studies reveal a problem. “These studies … show that between 70%-92% of ‘Christian’ teens were dropping out of church and abandoning their faith, most by their 20^th birthday.” (pg. 12)

What is really exciting is that Brown solution is both revolutionary, and yet not. It is revolutionary because it runs so counter to our cultural norms. In fact, many will find it just too radical and different. On the other hand, it is not revolutionary in that Brown is really doing nothing more than returning to scripture, and asking the question “What do the scriptures say about adolescents?” (pg. 21)

Considering all the books that discuss the scriptural approach to raising teens, the surprising answer is that the Bible is completely silent on the topic. The Biblical perspective is that you have two groups, children and adults, “with no stopovers at a place called ‘adolescence.’” (pg. 22)

Thus Brown argues for a revolutionary course of action, but one that should be music to every believer’s ears: That we treat our teenagers following the biblical pattern. Most of the book is aimed at defending this view and then laying out its implications which are many. This is revolutionary when compared to the culture at large, a culture that allows young adults to drift through their teen years with few expectations and no clear line of adulthood. The current view is neither biblical, nor even very old, only a 100 years or so. As you read through Brown’s book, the individual parts are not really very new or very revolutionary, except that they are rarely pulled together and applied to, or expected of, teens.

Another thing that is clear is that Brown is not proposing yet another youth program. In fact if applied in that fashion, it would probably fail. What Brown is proposing is a vast and long term change in perspective. Given the reluctance to even face the problem, Brown will certainly face opposition from some. That is just not the way we do it. That just will not work with today’s teens. The reasons will be many, but the conclusion will be the same. It just will not work.

To those who are concerned with the current 70%-92% loss among 18-20 year olds, Brown’s book will at a minimum be a welcome point of view and a must read. To those who are skeptical I would make the same challenge that I do in all my teaching on the Bible. You don’t have to believe me, or in this case Brown. Look at that biblical evidence he puts forth. Pray about the examples he cites. Look at how teens are treated in the Bible and what is expected of them. And reach your own conclusions as to what does the Bible say. Ask yourself, if your church’s youth program is patterned after the culture, or if it is patterned after the Bible?

In the end, agree or not with Brown, this is a book that should be read by anyone concerned with the church, and in particular with those in the teen years.

Note: Energion Publications is also the publisher of my books

Recently I finished teaching a study of the Gospel of John. This class took two year (with summers off) so we spent considerable time in John.  The class elected to study the letters of John next and so in preparation I have once again been reviewing the preliminary question of authorship, which for the letters is strongly intertwined with the Gospel.

Usually I deal with such questions at the start of a study, but coming back to them having just finished the Gospel really drove home how utterly basis were the claims that the apostle John was not the author.  The problems here are an example of what is wrong with so much of academia.

Without going into too much detail, there are several things one can look at when trying to determine authorship. One is external evidence, which in the case of the Gospel of John is very clear and strong, linking back to those who personally knew and worked with the apostle.   Then there are several types of internal evidence.   The first is what the Gospel claims for itself.  The Gospel of John says it was written by “disciple whom Jesus kept loving” (John 21:20-24 ISV) and when the statements about this disciple are examined, it turns out to be John.

From all of this it would seem pretty clear that the apostle John was the author.  And yet many, if not most, scholars not only reject the authorship of John, but claim instead John was the work of many authors.  Now if there were some clear changes in style or language, another type of internal evidence, which pointed to multiple authors, then one could understand such claims. But as D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris point out in their “An Introduction to the New Testament”,

The stylistic unity of the book has been demonstrated again and again as concrete evidence against this or that source theory.  Even the prologue (1:1-18) and the epilogue (chap 21) exhibit a style remarkably attuned to the rest of the book. (p 152)

Again, having just completed an in depth study of the Gospel, and having just recently looked in detail at all the evidence for chapter 21, it drove home how true this statement is.   So why then, given the solid external evidence, the claims of the book itself, and the internal consistency, is the authorship of the apostle John even an open question, but less rejected?

The answer seems to be that before a lot of this evidence was established, scholarly opinion dated this, and the other gospels, well into the second century, some dating it as late as  170, well beyond the lifetime of the apostles.   If the apostle did not write it, then someone else did, and this someone must have gotten the material they wrote from somewhere.   As a result, scholars spent considerable time trying to determine the sources of the Gospels and multiple sources have frequently been seen as multiple authors.   A real problem, however, is that unlike the other evidence, attempts of find sources is much more problematic, subjective, and thus error prone.

As a result, elaborate speculations were developed about a Johannine tradition, community or possibly even a school, which was responsible for the creation of the Gospel of John and the letters.  Over time these speculations became theories, which with succeeding generations of scholars came to be seen as established fact, based more on the reputation of the earlier scholars, than any actual evidence. Under close examination they remained little more than speculations, with very little if any actual evidence to support them.  The earlier speculations then came to be the foundation for even further speculations by succeeding scholars, until a large and elaborate framework of speculation was developed.

Since then, however, the late dating of the Gospels has run into serious problems, not the least of which have been that a fragment of the Gospel of John have been discovered that dates from around 125, well before the speculations about it authorship had claimed it was even written.

And yet, even though the evidence now show the Gospel was written within the lifetime of the apostle John, many scholars continue to reject his authorship, preferring instead the theories/speculations that it was written by Johannine community.   In short, they reject the actual objective evidence that points to the apostle John, and instead support what are really little more than speculations that depend mainly on scholarly inertia and group think.

This problem is not limited to Biblical Scholarship.  With the possible exception of the hard sciences, which have the ability/burden to actually objectively test their theories, it is found throughout academia.  Once the bastion of the exploration of new ideas grounded in reason and evidence, academia have become increasingly unified and closed mined, wedded to scholarly speculations and immune to the evidence.

As in, biblical scholarship, students in the various disciplines are discouraged from thinking critically about the prevailing views of the disciplines, but instead to accept them, in some cases as dogmatically as any medieval doctrine.   Slowly, any existing critical thinking and common sense are drummed out of the student, replaced instead by the new gospel of truth, the study.

There is nothing inherently wrong with studies, and the point here is not to attack them per se.  But like everything else, they have their strengths and their weaknesses.  Yet, I have actually heard professors claim that they will not believe anything unless there is a study to support it. This is an absurd claim, but the very fact that a supposedly learned person could make such a statement, and make it proudly, shows one of the problems with academia.  Pointing to studies is a way to avoid actually thinking.  If the study says X, then you don’t have to think about X any longer, you can just accept the study.

One only has to consider the problems of conflicting studies, to realize the problems with such a claim.  But the problems are much deeper.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s there were no studies that show men and women were different.   The common sense view that they were different was rejected as being based on common sense.  So men and women were declared the same.

As a result of advances in our knowledge of biochemistry and how the brain works,  we now know for a fact that men and women are not only different, but significantly different in the way they  think and react.  But as with the evidence for the authorship of John, this is largely ignored and the view that men and women are the same continues to shape much of society even today in everything from how we dress, to how the sexes interact,  to how we raise our children,  to marriage, and same-sex marriage.

Some might ask: So what? Where is the harm?  When pressed, such questions usually are little more than a demand for evidence from yet another study.  But, it is also a further problem with the group think-study based view of academia.    Most studies are so narrow that they only seek to answer the question the scholar asks.  If your knowledge is based on studies, then your knowledge will be limited to what is researched.  Thus if they don’t look for the problems, the studies will not find them.  The group-think that controls so much of scholarship passively, and sometimes even actively, limits what will be researched. Even when studies are done, that show problems, the group think mentality tend to relegate them to obscurity.

In short we live in a world increasingly under the sway of an academia that through the schools and in government are reshaping society to fit theories that are increasingly cut off from reality. This is a prescription for disaster.

There are two types of books that I particularly like. First are those books that clearly, concisely, and rationally lay out and defend a position from differing points of view. Sadly, many books lack this attribute, in one form or another. Many authors simply assume their position and don’t even mention opposing points of view. When they do, it is often in such a straw man fashion as to be barely recognizable to their respective supporters. Secondly are books that argue in favor of a minority position. Even when I believe they are wrong, they ‘keep me on my toes’ so to speak; challenging me to consider evidence I may not have fully considered. As James Burke points out in his BBC series, The Day the Universe Changed, we all have a basic built-in tendency to ignore any evidence that does not fit how we view things.

In Why Four Gospels, David Alan Black has succeeded in both areas. First, the majority view. No one disputes that there is a close literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as they are just too similar, and in fact in some places match word for word. While there are numerous variations, the majority view is basically that Mark was written first, and then was used in the creation of Matthew and Luke. The variations emerge because, while this would explain a lot, it does not explain all of the literary relationships, such as the places that Matthew and Luke agree, but differ from Mark. Based on this some argue that Luke was based on Matthew as well. Others postulate a hitherto unknown source called Q. But whatever the variations, the majority all agree that Mark was the first to be written.

In a mere 78 pages, Dr. Black clearly, concisely, and rationally points out the problems with the majority position and lays out the evidence for a different point of view, a view in which Matthew was written first, and then latter used in the writing of Luke. The Gospel of Mark, rather than being written first, was the last of the three and based on the other two according to this view.

Now it is important to note that Dr. Black’s book, while based on serious scholarship, is not, as he points out “written for biblical scholars” (p. v). Thus the book is very accessible to anyone with an interest in this question. The layperson will find the argument summarized without scholarly jargon or a need to understand Greek, while those interested in exploring the questions raised in greater detail will find a twenty page Bibliography to get them started.

Of course the most obvious question is what leads Dr. Black to such a different conclusion than the majority. At its core, the difference comes from how one views the various types of evidence. Markan priority, the majority view, is based primarily on internal evidence; that is the detailed comparison and analysis of the passages that three Gospels share in common, along with the passages where they differ, to try and determine which was written first and who used whom. That this method has not yielded a clear answer, but has many variations, and in some cases has had to invent new sources such as Q to make it work, is enough to call it into question for Dr. Black.

The view that Matthew was written first is based on external evidence, primarily the statements of the earliest church fathers, those closest in time to their writing. One of the real benefits of Why Four Gospels is that, rather than just discuss these references, it quotes all the relevant passages. The reason for this is pretty clear. “Whenever the four Gospels are mentioned, Matthew always heads the list”(p. 28). In fact, patristic evidence argues pretty clearly and consistently against the modern view of Markan priority and in favor of the view Dr. Black lays out.

Thus, whether or not one ultimately agrees with Dr. Black’s view, Why Four Gospels preforms a valuable service. Its clear and concise arguments, its laying out of the evidence from the earliest Christians, its rational critique of the evidence behind the majority position, is sure to challenge, if not convince. If nothing else, it will challenge the existing notion of many biblical scholars that the earliest Christian sources are “inconsistent, contradictory, and insecurely based” (p. 33), a view that, while common among biblical scholars, is not shared by scholars of Classical Greece and Rome.

Thus Dr. Black’s Why Four Gospels is an important work that should be read by every serious student of the New Testament.